Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Brisbane Lions - 2:30PM AEST Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 61% chance -- What's your tip? -- Ticketing Buy, Sell -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Grand Final
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Duursma goes to his direct opponent and then notices the Sydney player alone inside 50. He makes an effort to get back but is too late.
Others are ball watching. It was not good but it highlights one of Port Adelaide’s biggest issues and it is not height in the back half.
What Port Adelaide lack more than anything is a defensive general. Why aren’t the defenders screaming and calling players back? Why are they so disorganised behind the ball?
A general in defence would never have let this happen. Imagine May or Lever in this situation…Imagine Hodge. Who is our organiser?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Are you saying the Dixon 50 wasn't there? It was a massive brain fade by him and cost us the lead with 2 minutes to go.The dixon 50, the Houston deliberate rushed behind, the ridiculous goal review bullocks up on meads goal. Port should have been 3 goals up anyway. Don't buy that talk that we were lucky
Still played like s**t. Sydney just aren't very good
I’ll give you two out of three. The Dixon 50 in the 4th was there. I would also add that Marshall was lucky to get the free for the push in the fourth. the umpiring was rubbish both ways….The dixon 50, the Houston deliberate rushed behind, the ridiculous goal review bullocks up on meads goal. Port should have been 3 goals up anyway. Don't buy that talk that we were lucky
Still played like s**t. Sydney just aren't very good
I know A isn’t going to happen.A, obviously. But A isn't going to happen.
The actual choice is A - Port finish maybe 6th or so and Ken doesn't sacked (don't kid yourself and think Koch won't give him another extension if we make the lower end of the finals, he's done it before and he'll do it again) or B - Port miss finals and Ken gets sacked. And B is the obvious choice there to everybody except shortsighted true believers such as yourself.
...and we got the Bullflogs next. The differential will be off the scale.
No surprises there re 3Very scrappy game won on emotion, and as has already been suggested that much emotion can't be re-produced on a weekly basis, and even if it could be skill and a decent game plan will eventually defeat it more often than not.
Some observations
1. the continued calling for video checks by one particular goal umpire was as boring as bat sh*t, and in at least one of them (and arguably 2) he should have been over ruled and a goal accredited to the Power.
2. Franklin is absolutely finished as an AFL player.
3. And possibly the worst - If the crows are as good as some now believe they are, that would mean they have come from below us on the pecking order to above us AGAIN during hinkley's tenure.
You talking about Jonas ? right.Says a lot about Cassisi doesn’t it?
Uninspiring captain, uninspiring individual. Give me Tredrea every day.
It was Tom Jonas, and why he ended up as captain.Happens so often in free play with this team it isn't funny, and not just in the defensive 50, there are a number of blokes there just getting sucked into a contest rather than hold their ground and structure. 2 or 3 blokes around the contest commit to the ball carrier leaving their opponents open for an easy out.
Think it stems from the pressure the ball carrier defensive style, where pressure means everyone attack the player with the ball, and no regard to cut off any of the in close options.
The issue with the Dixon 50 is more about the umpire deciding to allow Chad Warner to take advantage, and then call it back when he stuffed up and turned the ball over to Dixon.Are you saying the Dixon 50 wasn't there? It was a massive brain fade by him and cost us the lead with 2 minutes to go.
It was Tom Jonas, and why he ended up as captain.
The issue with the Dixon 50 is more about the umpire deciding to allow Chad Warner to take advantage, and then call it back when he stuffed up and turned the ball over to Dixon.
They didn't give Port the same nice call back when Connor Rozee attempted a snap under pressure robbing us of a set shot on goal.
i dont understand what he was meant to do? hes 30m from the player, was he meant to run the ball up to the player and lose his positioning, so he kicked it, as per most of our players he missed the target, the umps should have said yep that's a normal port kick.Are you saying the Dixon 50 wasn't there? It was a massive brain fade by him and cost us the lead with 2 minutes to go.
Pretty much this:Are you saying the Dixon 50 wasn't there? It was a massive brain fade by him and cost us the lead with 2 minutes to go.
Noone mentioned the Williams HTB decision. I don't the rule well enough, but the commentators seemed to think he didn't have prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. Perhaps someone who knows the rules better than I can tell me whether that was a bad call or not.It was Tom Jonas, and why he ended up as captain.
The issue with the Dixon 50 is more about the umpire deciding to allow Chad Warner to take advantage, and then call it back when he stuffed up and turned the ball over to Dixon.
They didn't give Port the same nice call back when Connor Rozee attempted a snap under pressure robbing us of a set shot on goal.
That Dixon kick to the swan's player who had been awarded the free was well above his head and landed at least 5 metres behind him, a brain fade like that should always result in a 50 metre penalty, and even if it was unintentional and just a poorly executed kick the ump would have had to see it as an attempt to buy time so more Port players could flood back into the swan's forward 50.
If the situation had been reversed, and there was no penalty forth coming I suspect many Port supporters tv sets may have been in jeopardy.
Holy shitFinally someone, Matty Lloyd, has highlighted how poor we were in the dying stages of the game.
.
AAA: AFL must step in on McCartin, how to beat the Pies, 'damning' Giants vision
AAA: Concern for McCartin, the 'blueprint' to beat the Pies, 'damning' Giants vision
Damian Barrett, Matthew Lloyd and Nat Edwards discuss a big weekend of storylines in Access All Areaswww.afl.com.au
8:55
It was diabolical defending. We lose that game and the blowtorch on Hinkley this week would've just about broken him.Holy s**t
View attachment 1656307
Ollie Wines, Dixon and Duursma, all with hands on hips after that Rozee kick. Duursma moves to a man to man up, but totally ignores Florent who has snuck out behind him. Had one of those boys or JHF pushed over into the
Jonas absolutely zero awareness, was on Heeney, but decided to roll up leaving Heeney in a tonne of space.
Farrell takes his man only, and doesn't shuffle the defence across to Heeney.
Houston & SPP totally unaware of what they're guarding and both look lost as the play unfolds.
This is such a bad look. Embarrassing stuff.
Lol. Spin it anyway you like. The one with a total lack of feel was Dixon. That's 50m every day of the week.i dont understand what he was meant to do? hes 30m from the player, was he meant to run the ball up to the player and lose his positioning, so he kicked it, as per most of our players he missed the target, the umps should have said yep that's a normal port kick.
its not like he booted the crap out of it or dribbled it along the ground, for me it was total lack of feel from the umpire.
LOL ... If he just missed him, then sure, I doubt the umpire would have reacted as he did. But Dixon kicked the ball 10m over the dudes head, and 20m behind him! Clearly not deliberate, but just as clearly it was sloppy, and considering the state of the game, it was very poor on his part. Notwithstanding the non "play-on" call, the 50m penalty against Dixon was clearly there.i dont understand what he was meant to do? hes 30m from the player, was he meant to run the ball up to the player and lose his positioning, so he kicked it, as per most of our players he missed the target, the umps should have said yep that's a normal port kick.
its not like he booted the crap out of it or dribbled it along the ground, for me it was total lack of feel from the umpire.
Pretty harsh. First heavy ground and the elements. Can be quite fatiguing at this time of the year, off the back of running out of steam in the showdown the week prior.Holy s**t
View attachment 1656307
Ollie Wines, Dixon and Duursma, all with hands on hips after that Rozee kick. Duursma moves to a man to man up, but totally ignores Florent who has snuck out behind him. Had one of those boys or JHF pushed over into the
Jonas absolutely zero awareness, was on Heeney, but decided to roll up leaving Heeney in a tonne of space.
Farrell takes his man only, and doesn't shuffle the defence across to Heeney.
Houston & SPP totally unaware of what they're guarding and both look lost as the play unfolds.
This is such a bad look. Embarrassing stuff.
That's bullshit.
What if we have the greatest possible coaching replacement in our table already, but because they're untried, we go someone else at the end of the year and they end up worse. Or, flipside, perhaps the caretaker coach is actually s**t, if we get them in as caretaker and see that, and therefore make the decision to get someone else. Both of those scenarios move us closer to a flag than keeping a dud coach for the rest of the year who we aren't interested in extending.
There's a whole bunch of players (Lycett, Jonas two obvious ones, but plenty of others) who won't play in our next premiership, but the last 10+ years have proven the current coach won't take them out of the team. This means there's a whole bunch of untried or barely tried youngsters that could be part of our next premiership that aren't getting game time. Move on the dud coach before the end of the year, give them some games to prove themselves, and that moves us closer to the flag.
Even just the gameplan itself. Get someone in to try a gameplan that might win us the premiership, give the players time to adapt to it and, lo and behold, that takes us closer to a premiership.
I can understand why you wouldn't want Hinkley sacked now if you think he should have his contact extended beyond this year. I can't however, understand why you think he should hang around if you think he's done at the end of the year anyway. It's very much a sunk cost. Get rid of him